Not to rain on anyone's parade (I'm a great fan of Bill's) but see the comments at Amazon. A number are really down on the book, and are quite specific as to why.

I think they're too harsh. The weirdest one is the guy who goes on about the JFK section. I think you learn more about the reviewer than you do about James' book there. In particular, part of that reviewer's criticism makes no sense. He says James really likes two books -- but how can he say that when those two books contradict each other, huh? .. . Uh,.. the answer's simple. James notes the differences in the books and then states he prefers Mortal Error. James likes Case Closed for demolishing the Oliver Stones of the world, but thinks the other book for doing a better job explaining what happened - with no sinister conspiracy of evil evil evil people.

It's the research? I thought that was the book's weakest part.

Well, gosh, Chris. Way to cut off my sentence in mid-phrase and omit the key portions.

It's the research? I thought that was the book's weakest part.

Well, gosh, Chris. Way to cut off my sentence in mid-phrase and omit the key portion.

Huh?

It's the research, the ability to describe patterns in what most of us might see as chaos, and most of all the deft, easygoing writing that makes it so engaging.

It's the research? I thought that was the book's weakest part. If he's writing about a murder, it's because he read a book about the murder. In some cases 2 or 3 books on it. Much of this book read like twice told tales - cliff notes versoin. He repeatedly points out in the book he's no expert on the subject.

--------------

I don't really see how quoting you entire sentence changes the level of research in the book.

It doesn't, Chris. But failing to quote my complete sentence fails to acknowledge that my assessment puts the research as only one-third (and indeed, the least important one-third) of the reasons why the book is engaging.

Sorry Dag, I just don't get this at all.

Second and more importantly, James doesn’t limit himself to simply depicting what went on in a crime and offering his own theories on it.  Nah, he’ll go further and make general sweeping statements about the nature of crime, crime prevention, and there are several digressions on how to fix society or what’s wrong with it.  And he also makes several statements on US history as well.  And . . he’s just some random guy in Tacoma when he does it.  For example, at one point he notes the US has over a million people in prison and comments that is a frightening fact because it means far too FEW people are in prison.  Or he’ll spend a page and a half arguing that the Warren court is responsible for the upsurge in crime in the 1960s/70s, and go back to that point repeatedly.  Or he’ll offer his prison reform ideas and . ..  .he’s just some random guy from Tacoma.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more off base here. That's the strength of the book, not the weakness. Those are some of the best parts of the book not the worst.

You sound exactly like the baseball establishment when he said things like OBP was more important than batting average. Or that steals (at MLB average success rates) and bunts are overrated. They said, who is this guy? Just some guy from Tacoma? What does he know?

Sorry, but you couldn't be more off base here. That's the strength of the book, not the weakness. Those are some of the best parts of the book not the worst.

Fully agreed. James's willingness to not behave like a typical author is a feature in this book, not a bug. As it has always been with him. You deal with the dorky badness of James, but in return you revel in the crazy smartness of him. This book is as good as it is precisely BECAUSE it's eager to reach beyond its narrow space.

Great question and response from Bill's mailbag...

Aren't you worried that by analyzing crime so much, you are taking the fun out of it for crime traditionalists? shouldn't we leave popular crime analysis to the traditional experts and avoid spoiling the intrinsic fun of the field?
Asked by: robert
Answered: May 16, 2011

I'm still waiting for an interviewer to ask me, "What do you know about crime? Did you ever kill anybody?"

James needs to get his nose out of the spreadsheet, move out of his mother's basement, and kill somebody.

BTW, I don't agree with him that we don't have enough people in prison.

But when he phrases it in a way like - if you had 300 people in your HS class, you don't think one should have spent some time in jail? Well that makes some sense. Granted that wouldn't mean someone from that class should be in jail at any point in time. But I don't have to agree with every comment for it to be a good book.

His thoughts on the scope-creep of things like the 3 strikes law were pretty insightful.

BTW, I don't agree with him that we don't have enough people in prison.

As said earlier, I don't agree with many of the opinions he presents. But his opinions, whether persuasive or not, are always presented within a rich backdrop of fact and perspective.

You sound exactly like the baseball establishment when he said things like OBP was more important than batting average. Or that steals (at MLB average success rates) and bunts are overrated. They said, who is this guy? Just some guy from Tacoma? What does he know?

No, because there he could back it up. He didn't just offer his opinion but gave reasons (usually stats) explaining why he was right.

Here - mostly just his opinion. He deliberately doesn't get involved in anything more saying it would be presumptious on his part to assume that some amateur true crime reader knows more about the matter than the criminologists and pros. Does the criminology field need a sabermetric shake up? James himself didn't feel so apparently.

Ultimately, therein lies a key difference between this and his abstracts. In sportswriting, it often was some guy offering his opinion about things and not backing it up with too much. James could top them because the emperor (Joe Sportswriter) had no clothes. Things are nearly reversed here.

The above paragraph came out too harsh. Again, I did like the book and it is a good read. Parts are great (the Cleveland Torso Chapter was riveting). Actually - I just realized a common denominator to a lot of my favorite parts: there's still a mystery that needs solving. All the cases I mentioned at the end of post #49 are either unsolved (or have widely questioned solvings, as in the case of the Boston Strangler).

But when he phrases it in a way like - if you had 300 people in your HS class, you don't think one should have spent some time in jail?

That's a for #### analogy. It's not "shouldn't one of these 300 people spend some time in jail." It's "shouldn'e one of these 300 people be in jail AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME." Not some time, now. I mean, unless you think all people who spend any time in jail should be there for life.

And then there's the question why any other nation has nowhere near 1 in 300 people in jail.

James needs to get his nose out of the spreadsheet, move out of his mother's basement, and kill somebody.

It's worked to give a number of us here some direction.

BTW, I don't agree with him that we don't have enough people in prison.

If most people in prison are in for BS drug crimes--using and selling--then maybe that tells us our system isn't doing a good job at getting the real, dangerous criminals, only the easy pickings that shouldn't be defined as criminals to start with. I'd always thought about the first of part of that, but never carried it out to that logical conclusion. In that sense, then, we have both too many wrong people in prison who shouldn't be in and too many not in who should be in.

Did you read my next sentence after the 300 people in class thing, I said exactly that. Just in a nicer way.

Agreed Morty. Not to mention some of the white collars that should be in prison too. Level Four or Five prisons maybe :-) but prisons nonetheless.

Did you read my next sentence after the 300 people in class thing, I said exactly that. Just in a nicer way.

I thought I had, but maybe not. Sorry about that.

Eh, it's getting late.

To actually comment on the article linked above (that's not bad form, is it?) I notice that it mentions Norman Mailer as a fan of Bill James. Haven't heard that before.

Of course, the piece also describes SABR as "a private organization that tracks baseball stats," so caveat lector.

Yeah, I read the article when it first came out, and cringed when I read the SABR description. Yikes.

"The 1983 Abstract is dedicated to all of the early readers...," some 80 or so people, which included Norman Mailer and William Goldman out of the literary world, as well as many other luminaries in other fields of endeavor.

Just picked this up from the library and started browsing it last nite. Looks pretty good so far.

I got about halfway through the Annie Oakley biography on TV when I realized that she's not the girl who chopped up her family with an axe.

I don't know why I got those two confused. Maybe it's because I learned about both of them in grade school and didn't give either another thought until a few years ago.

You know what? I don't think Mythbusters and the Big Bang Theory would be on TV without James. He took "slide-rule-in-Mom's-basement" and made it cool. Well, acceptable. Well, a recognized subculture.

With as much anti-intellectualism as there is in America today ("I just know that this is true, and I crazily use anything I can to support it"), common people relying on the scientific method and actually admiring people who have admirable mental skills as well as physical ones is a noteworthy thing.

I don't think that has anything to do with James. Probably all the geeks that have made billions creating things for the Internet.

Forget Mythbusters. James needs to do a guest shot on Criminal Minds.